The Evil God Challenge

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,017
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,937.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Creating a universe for the purpose of spreading evil could somehow not be evil? It seems self evident the same way spreading love would be loving, and spreading hate would be hateful. I'm afraid I don't understand the objection.
You need to explain on what basis it (or anything) is evil. How are you making that judgement?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How do we define create vs. destroy? Often the new creation destroys the old.

That's a great point. McDonald's is up to 30% post consumer content in it's wrappers. So we aren't so much as creating new packaging as we are destroying old packaging.

9994dc22b1896daa55d28a7f07ab94cf.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
You need to explain on what basis it (or anything) is evil. How are you making that judgement?
Why? Chrillman and I aren't talking about what constitutes good or what constitutes evil. He has his conception of good and evil, he believes God created for good reasons, so I asked about an evil god creating for evil reasons. What does my idea of evil have to do with him answering that question? Wouldn't we need to know what his idea of evil is instead?
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Why do you use words like "our" and "we"? Surely you just mean "you and me", right? Because there is no moral that is universally held by all people, so whether god is good or evil, there are people in disagreement with god. For everything that you call evil, there is someone out there who thinks it is good. So how does that affect any god, good or evil?

No, I mean "our" and "we." Morality is based in our psychology as a species--there are things that are good for us and bad for us. "Love your neighbor as yourself" appears to be good for us on an emotional level. There are certainly people out there, like Friedrich Nietzsche, who disagreed quite vehemently with that particular moral imperative and was also something of an unstable mess.

The fact that I may consider something good that another person considers evil doesn't necessarily mean our morals are polar opposites. It may well just mean that our information or the way we prioritize various aspects of moral reasoning is different.

And whoever said "evil god sees fit to toy with our concept of morality just because"? Evil god wants as much evil as possible because he is evil, there is no "just because". If there was only one other being and evil god, there would be less evil than lots of beings and evil god.

Your evil God cannot want as much evil as possible if he would hardwire us to better flourish when pursuing positive rather than negative aims.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You need to explain on what basis it (or anything) is evil. How are you making that judgement?
@Hammster & @Nicholas Deka , maybe good and evil can be defined in terms of God's will? God wants His will to be done. When we choose to respect God's will then we do good, and when we ignore God's will then we do evil.

With this definition there is no way for an evil God to exist. God cannot want for His will to be ignored, therefore God cannot want evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chriliman
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well, is the default state of an organism not to seek that which is 'good' for it? Is it not seeking to correct deficits, or fulfill desires in the higher forms?
Life constantly needs to be sustained or it will decay and die. The default state of Life is therefore to attempt to keep on living, to seek what is 'good' or sustaining to it. If this was not the default, then Life would not exist as such: the default of the living can hardly be construed as the dead, its opposite.

Our desires are backed by this simple attempt to reach something we conceive as 'good' for us - some perceived or actual need we wish to be filled. Often this is nothing of the sort, an attempt to reach an excess thereof beyond our needs or impinging on the 'good' of others for the sake of our own. This is evil, which by nature is merely excessive attempt toward our perceived 'good' or one inimical to the 'good' of others. Even serial killers kill to feel an emotion or fill a need, trying to chase a 'good' as it were, by perverted means. Evil cannot exist in isolation, only as a mirror or attempt toward the a perceived Good.

You are discussing good and evil as these concepts apply to life on Earth. But this thread is a mental exercise about the moral nature of God. Following tradition, I'm assuming an omnipotent deity who can be, or do anything. This god's inherent moral nature could be evil. But he could suspend it when it suits his purposes. As I stated, such a god would be deceitful. Performing good works maintains his disguise. In this earthly life, we know evil people do it all the time. And if humans can act contrary to their nature, certainly a god can.

But the main point of this challenge is that God's fundamental moral nature could be malevolent. And life would look exactly as we observe it.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
...how interesting it is that the Bible says that God takes NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked. So, case solved ..... :D

Well, maybe. Or maybe not. If God were evil, he'd be deceitful. How could you trust anything in his word?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,017
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,937.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Why? Chrillman and I aren't talking about what constitutes good or what constitutes evil. He has his conception of good and evil, he believes God created for good reasons, so I asked about an evil god creating for evil reasons. What does my idea of evil have to do with him answering that question? Wouldn't we need to know what his idea of evil is instead?
Now you are deflecting. So I’ll move on.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You are discussing good and evil as these concepts apply to life on Earth. But this thread is a mental exercise about the moral nature of God. Following tradition, I'm assuming an omnipotent deity who can be, or do anything. This god's inherent moral nature could be evil. But he could suspend it when it suits his purposes. As I stated, such a god would be deceitful. Performing good works maintains his disguise. In this earthly life, we know evil people do it all the time. And if humans can act contrary to their nature, certainly a god can.

But the main point of this challenge is that God's fundamental moral nature could be malevolent. And life would look exactly as we observe it.

The problem is that a couple of us in this thread subscribe to an Aristotelian account of metaethics, so the question is somewhat incoherent to us, as what is good and evil is tied into what is beneficial and harmful to us as a species.

Now, the question becomes more interesting if you toss in some Platonism and ask if it is specifically human intuitions about morality that reflect something about the nature of God. I could go either way on the question of a benevolent God, but I actually do not think the world would look exactly as it does if a malevolent God were its foundation. A species like the crocodile would probably have been the one to evolve advanced intelligence, as it would better be reflecting the will of the God that created it. (Of course, if you think humans are fundamentally evil, you're in a bit of a bind here, but I don't.)

I suppose it doesn't mean that an evil God is impossible, just not as likely as a good (or amoral) God, which was the point of the thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You're still looking at an evil God from the perspective of theology that assumes a good God. Why would an evil God care that we didn't know anything different?

Don't you think that painful events are more distressing when one has experienced joy and happiness? What makes the loss of a deeply loved one so difficult? It's because we remember the good times, and the companionship, and the fulfilling emotional connection we once had, but will never have again. Pain and pleasure are complimentary. I'd expect an evil god would allow us some contentment, so that we feel its deprivation more acutely.

Why would an evil God not derive pleasure from extinction events?

He probably does. But when he's ready. Since we're still here, he's not yet tired of the game.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Don't you think that painful events are more distressing when one has experienced joy and happiness? What makes the loss of a deeply loved one so difficult? It's because we remember the good times, and the companionship, and the fulfilling emotional connection we once had, but will never have again. Pain and pleasure are complimentary. I'd expect an evil god would allow us some contentment, so that we feel its deprivation more acutely.

No, I think painful events are more distressing when betrayal casts a shadow and destroys even the memory of the joy and happiness that one has experienced. Obviously there's some of that, but it seldom reaches the true heights of Shakespearian or Greek tragedy.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, I mean "our" and "we." Morality is based in our psychology as a species--there are things that are good for us and bad for us. "Love your neighbor as yourself" appears to be good for us on an emotional level. There are certainly people out there, like Friedrich Nietzsche, who disagreed quite vehemently with that particular moral imperative and was also something of an unstable mess.

The fact that I may consider something good that another person considers evil doesn't necessarily mean our morals are polar opposites. It may well just mean that our information or the way we prioritize various aspects of moral reasoning is different.
Some people think it is good to molest children, but I imagine you would call that objectively evil. So, no, there is no "our" and "we" when it comes to morals, nor is it merely a different prioritizing of morals.
Your evil God cannot want as much evil as possible if he would hardwire us to better flourish when pursuing positive rather than negative aims.
Why not? More people means more more opportunity for evil to occur.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Some people think it is good to molest children, but I imagine you would call that objectively evil. So, no, there is no "our" and "we" when it comes to morals, nor is it merely a different prioritizing of morals.

No, I would call that a psychological illness.

I am really not sure what you're trying to argue at all here. Molesting children is objectively evil, therefore there is no objective morality and molesting children is not a problem?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, I would call that a psychological illness.
Why?

I am really not sure what you're trying to argue at all here. Molesting children is objectively evil, therefore there is no objective morality and molesting children is not a problem?
No, I've never said anything of the sort.


It appears that what you're trying to do, rather than showing that god is good, is to show god can't be evil, which is a perfectly fine strategy to take. So, allow me to borrow from some WLC logic to argue for the evil god hypothesis.

We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether evil god has sufficient reasons for the good things that occur. As finite persons, we are limited in time, space, intelligence, and insight. But the transcendent and sovereign evil god sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that his purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve his ends, evil god may have to put up with certain good things along the way. Good things which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within evil god's wider framework.​

This is a cut and paste from his website here: ReasonableFaith
Obviously, I changed some key words though.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

Because pedophilia is defined as a psychological disorder. Do you take issue with secular psychology?

No, I've never said anything of the sort.

You seem to think the existence of pedophilia is a defeater of objective morality. Which would mean that it is perfectly normal for people to be pedophiles.

It appears that what you're trying to do, rather than showing that god is good, is to show god can't be evil, which is a perfectly fine strategy to take. So, allow me to borrow from some WLC logic to argue for the evil god hypothesis.

Why would I try to show that God is good? I think it perfectly coherent that God be utterly beyond human notions of good and evil. The possibility that we somehow developed a moral understanding completely at odds with the divine reality seems rather remote, however, so you would need to explain why God would endow us with an approach to morality so contrary to his own. Otherwise your evil God hypothesis fails.

Your remash of WLC is irrelevant to this particular question, as I am not concerned with the existence of good, per se. I am specifically concerned with the question of why we would think that evil is good and that good is evil in this scenario. If you do not believe in objective morality at all, then the whole question ceases to make sense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I suppose it doesn't mean that an evil God is impossible, just not as likely as a good (or amoral) God, which was the point of the thread.

We're pretty close to agreeing. My point is that we cannot know God's moral nature--if there is a god--by observing how the world operates. Other than wishful thinking--reinforced by faith--there's no reason to believe God is morally good. There's certainly no evidential reason for such a belief. And as I see it, coming up with probabilities that God is good, bad, or indifferent is pure speculation.
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You are discussing good and evil as these concepts apply to life on Earth. But this thread is a mental exercise about the moral nature of God. Following tradition, I'm assuming an omnipotent deity who can be, or do anything. This god's inherent moral nature could be evil. But he could suspend it when it suits his purposes. As I stated, such a god would be deceitful. Performing good works maintains his disguise. In this earthly life, we know evil people do it all the time. And if humans can act contrary to their nature, certainly a god can.
Be careful not to fall into the trap that a lot of atheists fall into in that they begin with a mission of using the logic of human experience and thought as a measuring rod to expose the absurdity of belief in God (in this case a good God)...but then as rebuttals come in they will abandon their measuring rod of human experience in exchange for reasoning that is contrary to our human experience (because it helps their arguments).

Are you really on the emperically logical end of the thought experiment if you start off by telling someone to dump their observation of Earth, and instead think about a fictitious planet that may not even exist as their measuring rod?

Don't you think that painful events are more distressing when one has experienced joy and happiness? What makes the loss of a deeply loved one so difficult? It's because we remember the good times, and the companionship, and the fulfilling emotional connection we once had, but will never have again.
This would imply that the life of the Average Joe, with ups & downs and lost loved ones, would result in better success for an evil God than the life of a physically & sexually abused person who lives their entire life in a living Hell. Hmm I'll disagree with that theory.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I believe in neutral, though. Neutral can be turned to good or to evil. Something that has been created isn't inherently good, without purpose or use it is still just neutral. Consider even Genesis 1:1-2. At that point, God hasn't said anything is good yet, not until He creates light does he say it is good.

So an evil god can create a universe, and the life within it, for the purpose of spreading hate, and violence, and suffering, and evil, and creating was never good because the intent and the purpose was never good.
I can't really imagine anything completely neutral. There are people who'll tell you you should choose chocolate or vanilla ice cream based on a moral choice dependent on which business is treating its workers better - the cocoa producers or the vanilla producers.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
But why can't evil be, as you say, the "normal" state? (A better term might be the default state.) And good, therefore exists when the default state is disabled, or attenuated. I know this is a psychologically difficult idea. But I see no logical barrier to it.
Evil can't be the normal or default because evil can't be done for it's own sake. When evil is done, it is seeking something good. Good has to pre-exist evil.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Because pedophilia is defined as a psychological disorder. Do you take issue with secular psychology?
Most people that molest children aren't pedophiles. Only about a third are. Most pedophiles think it's wrong to molest children, and so they don't. If we're talking about a pedophile who thinks it is okay to molest children, then yes, I agree that they have a psychological disorder and they're evil. If we're talking about the vast majority of people who molest children who are not pedophiles, then no. I believe they are completely sane, evil people.
Your remash of WLC is irrelevant to this particular question, as I am not concerned with the existence of good, per se.
I believe that is exactly what you are concerned with, see here:

The possibility that we somehow developed a moral understanding completely at odds with the divine reality seems rather remote, however, so you would need to explain why God would endow us with an approach to morality so contrary to his own.
Are you saying that this "moral understanding" which you speak of is not "good"?
 
Upvote 0